as the most vital installations in the world. There may be disagreements
about whether or not these should be the Top Six US bases worldwide, but the
list serves to illustrate the geopolitical transformation that has taken place
since 2000. Or more accurately, it reflects the current administration's
perception of what the geopolitical map the early 21st century looks like. Not
only does the list appear very different from one that could have been compiled in the late
Clinton Administration era, it also provides an alternative explanation
for the weakening of links to Western European allies that the Bush
administration has often been blamed for. The newly important areas to the US
are China, Southwest Asia and Central Asia. Western Europe, while still
important, may no longer have the central position it once had.

This assessment of relative importance is debatable. It can be argued that
Western Europe is in fact the most important theater in the War on Terror. Once
the press stops talking about the Bush strategy in such simplistic and
misleading terms as the mere outcome of ignorance, stupidity and neoconservative
optimism or the result of such cartoonish notions as a search for markets for
Halliburton it will be possible to focus on whether or not these new
deployments, together with the strategy that it represents, is rational or not.
This constant "talking down to the stupid" has really sabotaged
intelligent debate, in part because one party is presumed to be without any
intelligence whatsoever.

Commentary

I've really been struck, nearly five years after September 11, by the nondebate over strategy and geopolitics, as exemplified by the Democratic Party's Real Security platform. Whether one agrees with them or not, it is a fact that there are many intelligent people in the Democratic Party, and it is hardly possible to believe the Real Security platform is anything but the political equivalent of a bye, written for the express purpose of saying absolutely nothing, at least as far as official positions goes. In the meantime people are left to speculate how it may take the form of views expressed by those "associated" with Democratic political figures. Let's put it this way: what would the Six Most Important US Bases be under a Democratic administration? Maybe exactly the same ones. If so, that's too risky to admit.

It's not clear how forces and materiel located in these bases differ from forces located elsewhere. Is it the logistics chain? (not by any recent evidence). Is it commander-in-the-field close to the troubled-area? (Not really, we command the hot-part of war ("major military action") from half-a-world away.

Technology and modern (commercial) logistics have made location unimportant for many companies. The cost of shipping an incremental ton over water is approaching 0. And it seems the latency from action to response is shrinking by factors of 10 every decade. How many troubled areas are more than an hour away from the littoral launch point of a cruise missile?

Perhaps the physical bases are just "for show" as other nations don't quite realize how radically we've changed the world (just by doing business around the world).

I'm pretty sure Wretchard was speaking of the Dem/MSM attitude that Bush is dumb, Republicans are "racist" for voting for English as our national language, etc.

Ari Tai, you are simplifying things a bit too much, I think. Having a major air base in the center of the hottest theater right now is a tremendous asset in terms of fast, massive potential, far greater than the limited potential of (conventional) Cruise missiles.

Hmmm, so it looks like we weren't kidding about having bases comparable to Okinawa and Rheinmain as a very significant outcome of OIF.

I guess the moonbats will have to switch their chant to "No War for Airbases, man!"

Those on the left should really fear the books GWB is likely to write when he is no longer President, because he will reveal that he had their number all along.

He understood from the outset that the left and the press had become totally addicted over the years to their sense that they were 'players', with whom one had to compromise to get anything done. He knew that if they could be denied that source of self-esteem then their uncontrollable lust for attention would force them to take ever more shrill and less effective positions until, their howling became a dull roar alongside which he could pursue his own goals quite happily.

As a result he has yielded them nothing, and has suffered no more effective opposition than every other Republican President since WWII, all of whom the press and the left declared 'stupid' the moment they decided it was fashionable to do so, regardless of whatever concessions had been given to them. This is their reward for behaving over the decades like a cage full of howling monkeys; that's exactly how Bush decided to treat them, and as a result that's exactly how they look today.

Wretch, I have lurked at the various B-club locations since Mr. Gore set all of this up for us and have always admired your keystrokes. "Importance" is obviously relative. Locating bases is always a study in topology. Having assets prepositioned in close prox. to our crisis du jour surely reduces valuable time to target. Bases from which to launch our ever the more observant and lethal drones will prove extremely valuable in the very near future...IMHO

Why is it that not one of the top six US bases is located in the US itself? Is this an oversight? Should it really read 'the top six FOREIGN US bases'? or is this a stark example of how much of an imperial force the US has become? How many other nations in the world can boast of even a single military base outside of their nation much less the top 6 most important ones?

"The U.S. military is cleaning house. Existing bases are being retooled or eliminated, and new ones are popping up in some unexpected places. >>>FP looks at the overseas bases<<< that are now vital to the U.S. military—and the new ones that will change its global footprint for years to come."

wretchard, hehe, actually that was hanging in the back of my mind. Guam is US.

Tony,I did actually follow the link and quickly read it speicifically looking to see if it was foreign only being considered and I guess I skimmed that first line and missed the 'overseas'. I guess Guam technically qualifies as it is 'overseas' and US. Still, awfully imperial of US, all those foreign bases and all, dontcha think?

A very interesting post. I cannot think of any military base in England or Western Europe that makes any sense today. They are expensive and of dubious political and minimal military value. The same would apply to Turkey. Who knows what bases a Kerry administration would maintain. Certainly We should have a major naval and air base on both ends of the Panama Canal. Cam Ranh Bay and DaNang in Viet Nam would be handy and Wheelus AFB in Lybia could be useful.

Ash is from the Maddie Albright School?Should we try to achieve parity with the rest of the world in order to have "stability?"

Rush mentioned a minor commodity possessed by Libya that makes it rather worth cultivating also, although obviously we have more than enough, since we stopped drilling for it offshore some time ago, as the House reminded us yet again.

It does make a difference. My Uncle was XO of the B-52 wing that bombed the shit out of the Republician Guard in '91. They were only able to do that because of Diego. Turn around between sorties was about 6 hours. A B-52 has internal stowage for enough fuel to stay up about 8-10 hours. So if there had been an emergency , they could have bombed up and been back over the target in about 3 hours and then refueled in the air after. So it makes a BIG difference in sustained power projection. The Cruise missle thingie is ok for going after the ADS, but it really sucks for sustained ops. That Tomahawk comes. explodes, then It's done. The survivors go on about their business. A B-52 at 50,000 feet is out of range of all but a few SAMs and it carries 84 JDAM's which can be dropped on single targets. So it comes and stays. Tremendous moral affect. The guys being bomed CANNOT fight back. Their choices are surrender or die. Having a base full of bombs in Iraq means that the Iranians have no chance of winning. They can either surrender or die. They cannot wait out the bomber, which would be the case if the bombers had to fly back to America or a carrier. Beyond the operational to the strategic, America's future lies along the Pacific Rim. Mahan pointed this out a decade or so after the Civil War. Don't forget it was American attempts at protecting China from the Japanese that led to Pearl Harbor. The Original guerrilla war in the Phillipines was because after bouncing the Spainish out, American Commercial interests wanted to replace the Spainsh as colonial masters. The Administration had promised the PI that they would gain their indpendence. This was a much bigger political issue at that time then Iraq is today. So the 'American colonialist' fought it out politically with the 'colonies are evil' crowd. The Latter group won, which is why a plan for guiding the PI to independence was worked out. Unfortunatly, it took too long and the Philipinos started killing American troops, who started killing Philipinos. Eventually, after a lot of people died, it was wroked out. What was also worked out was the political principal that the USA had vital interests on the Pacific Rim and that they would best be served by diplomacy, not conquest. While that may change someday, that day is FAR in the future. Meanwhile, the american attitude toward Europe was that it's the 'old country'. If you are of african , asian, middle eastern or south american descent, it isn't the old country. So as the American melting pot gets less European, it would only be natural that America looks less fondly on Europe. Europeans go out of their way to promote that attitude.

Ash, what you are missing is that those bases are there BY TREATY. The Land is leased and paid for. Your Tax dollars at work. So it's more commercial then imperial. Every now and then one of the host nations will ask us to leave, which we do. That is a far cry from 'Imperial'. The Chinese are correct in that what the USA has is a hegemony.

It could be turned into an empire, but why bother? It's a LOT of work for very little gain. Small little nations might need an empire to gain the resources they need to function as a value added economy, but America is a Continent that thinks it's a nation. Alaska is almost as big as Europe, and has a smaller population then many European cities. So America hs no need of an empire.

Ash, Guam has been a US protectorate since the Spanish-American War. Some of the more hair-raising stories out of the Pacific in WWII came from the Japanese Empire's wresting the island away from US Marines in 1941. The Marines re-took it in 1944 in another conflagration of no-holds-barred combat. Point is, USA has sacrificed to hold it, and the Guamese are as far as I can tell (a neighbor used to fly Guam for Continental Airlines), very happy being part of the USA.

When our Host derides the Democrats and their"talking about the Bush strategy in such simplistic and misleading terms as the mere outcome of ignorance, stupidity and neoconservative optimism ... ... it will be possible to focus on whether or not these new deployments, together with the strategy that it represents, is rational or not."

Seems to me that he is saying that the Dems while making the "simplistic" case is really acting in an ignorant way. Unintelligently.

He then says " This constant "talking down to the stupid" has really sabotaged intelligent debate, in part because one party is presumed to be without any intelligence whatsoever. ".

From this whom does he consider "talked down to", perhaps not Mr Bush, but the people they are speaking to, the Public?

Who really frames the debate, if not the Executive? Where does the Press go to "ambush" the President, the Briefing Room at the White House.If the President cannot comtrol his "Home Turf" it is not the fault of the Reporters who visit.

I've read they are not really intelligent, or is the White House staff?

Whom is with out intelligence, those that slander or those that do not set the record straight?

It is part and parcel of the Info War that Mr Rumsfeld speaks of. Perhaps with Mr Snow the "message" delivery will improve. But just 'cause the Dems are framimg the debate, it does not excuse how poorly the Administration has done communicating the positive message.

As to the '08 departure date, until the PM of Iraq, Mr Maliki, or his soon to be announced Defense Minister says different.It is their call, after all.

That Anaconda base is not yet leased, long term. When it is, I'll change my tune.

Political stability appears to be elusive, however, as various groups and factions allegedly linked to organized crime are jockeying for power.

Three of the 75 members of Parliament elected in March 2005 have been assassinated since then, and another member was assassinated on 10 May 2006 shortly after winning his murdered brother's seat in a by-election.

All four are reputed to have been directly involved in major illegal business ventures.---Next month Mr Bakiyev will attend a meeting of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, a regional security grouping including Russia and China which last year asked the US to set a date for the closure of its central Asian bases.Manas has become a source of tension between Kyrgyzstan and the US since the revolution. Revelations that Mr Akayev’s family siphoned off part of US jet fuel payments at the base were an embarrassment to Washington.

Afghanistan Rocked As 105 Die in ViolenceToll Is Among Worst Since 2001 InvasionASADABAD, Afghanistan, May 18 -- Afghanistan has been rocked over the past two days by some of the deadliest violence since the Taliban was driven from power in late 2001. As many as 105 people were reported killed in four provinces as insurgents torched a district government compound, set off suicide bombs and clashed fiercely with Afghan and foreign troops.

Did you see this story in the Washington Post today, this headline: "Afghanistan Rocked as 105 Die in Violence"? What does that headline imply to you?Oh, yeah: "Afghanistan Rocked as 105 Die in Violence! Why, I read that headline and I think, 'Oh, no! We have been dealt a stinging and tragic blow! Oh, noooo! Iraq is bad enough but now Afghanistan is falling apart? Oh, no! (gasp!)" Well, here are the details: "Between 80 and 90 Taliban fighters [terrorists] were killed in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, according to Afghan, U.S. and NATO officials. Two sites in Kandahar were struck by U.S. warplanes, including a long-range B-1 bomber, which U.S. military officials said destroyed a compound that Taliban guerrillas [terrorists] were using to stage an attack. Among the dead were an American police trainer killed by a car bomb in Herat province, a female Canadian army captain and at least 12 Afghan national" cops.

So the bad guys took a huge hit: 80 to 90 Taliban "fighters" -- that's Al-Qaeda terrorists, essentially? -- gone. How in the world...? I mean, you talk about Drive-By Media? This is a classic illusion here: "Afghanistan Rocked as 105 Die in Violence." - Limbaugh

(Kyrgyzstan will meet with the )Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, a regional security grouping including Russia and China which last year asked the US to set a date for the closure of its central Asian bases.

As with Iraq, Bush was warned again and again that his "Freedom is on the March!!" machinations would only generate ill-will in Central Asia. The screwing of Putin in his own backyard on the Ukraine by neocons in the BUsh Administration led Putin to China's arms and the SCO.

We are in a period where Putin has dug the knife out of his back and is happily stabbing back by giving Iran and China just about any weapons system they want and working to rid Central Asia of bases and to return Afghanistan to "non-aligned" status.

China, eating our lunch economically, is doing the same in foreign policy. It sees the US in rapid decay under Bush II, and has compiled a string of successes against America in the ME, Africa, SE Asia, Latin America, and Central Asia. (And done so making money the whole time while the US pisses away treasure in Iraq [400 billion so far]and domestically [180 billion] on evildoer fighting all while having an 11% growth rate, loaning America the money it needs to buy WalMart goods and build 9/11 Memorials)

The base issue is a complex, air, land and sea issue as (J. Samford has points out). It's centers on the re-supply issue. How much through put can one get from a forward base compared to a US bound base? How many B-52s, B-1s, B-2s, AC-130 Spectre gunships can one launch from aircraft carriers? Very few that I know of.

Further, the naval aspect of bases are very important. The heavy stuff will always be needed (remember the effective use of heavy airships during both the Afghanistan and the Iraq operations).

On the political side, I would guess that the more that is 'said' about this issue (particularly in the political field) - the less that will actually be 'done.' No one wants to loose a base.

Now, bases do come with significant costs. Locations where bases are setup can become addicted to the radiant cash flow (there is a large amount of cash flow spun-off to the local population). And, those who are snubbed can become highly hostile to said base. Further, security can become an huge issue over time.

That said I would guess some people could point to the huge benefits of bases. Others could point to failures. But, overall the utility of a base cannot be understated.

Logically, one would like to see less bases in wealthy European counties (Germany) and more bases close to the hot spots (the ME). Who needs to subsidize the Germans forever?

I believe that smart base locations can be a huge benefit to American and world stability. The key is were to down size and were to up-size.

A better question might be, "do we need all the bases that we currently have?" I would posit that 4 in Iraq, 3 in Afghanistan, a couple in Bulgaria and Romania as well as one in Georgia would be cheaper and a lot more effective than the EIGHTEEN BASES we have in Germany alone. Any reason why we still have 18 bases in Germany, except for legacy reasons?

Ever since Jimmy Carter, every Democratic Party president of the US carries the official Articles of Surrender of the United States of America--instead of the nuclear football. The name of the conquering nation is conveniently left blank, for the president to fill in when the time comes.

There is no sign that this tradition will soon be broken with by any of the current crop of DP candidates. It is most likely that a sizeable proportion of the american public understands this intuitively.

"If the President cannot comtrol his "Home Turf" it is not the fault of the Reporters who visit."

So if I come over to your house to watch the all star game and crap in the middle of your living room carpet, according to you it's not my fault. How about beating you kids, kicking your dog or raping your wife? Not my fault either, right?If this is what the left considers logic, the Islamists NEED to take over.

This American base evil. They are unclean and Allah be praised. They are monkey and pig bases for American and Zionist agression,praise Allah. Priase Allah for our dirt floors and women we can beat up,priase Mohammad the cartoon.I'll have a Kaaba burger, hold the evil sauerkraut. Allah & Mohammad goat team #1

DR, that depends. America was right on the edge of a civil war in 2000. An attempt by any administration to surrender will be meet with insurrection here in the red states. That means the blue states will NOT eat. That will make it a sort civil war. I'll burn my farm to the ground before I feed a bunch of pocking blue staters. My neighbors feel the same way. No American city has enough food in it to last more then 3 days. The blue states depend on the trucks arriving frequently to eat. That won't happen, since the trucks are mostly driven by red staters, the police are mostly red staters, as well as the military (70+ %, IIRC). So any American President that chooses surrender will end up as a lamp pole decoration. Out of season. Back in the 1880's, viligantes took over San Franciso;

http://www.militarymuseum.org/Sheman2.html

No body ever accused William T. Sherman of being soft hearted about doing his duty. Only when he went to take command of his troops to put down the vigilantes, he discovered his troopers WERE the vigilantes. Somthing similar would happen if an administration was to attempt to surrender America to ANYONE.

The President of the US can not answer a reporters questions, is "run over" by them.Have not seen it, wxcept in the debate where Mr Bush could not remember a "single" mistake he'd made, while President.Not a great moment as I recall.

Ari Fliesher held his own, that family friend from Texas, Scott, he was out of his depth, a punching bag.Whose fault was that? If unarmed Marines were sent to attack Fallujah, who'd be to blame, the Insurgents or the Marine's Commanders?

It the President sends knife fighters to a gun fight, well, that not the "Chicago Way", is it?

The cascade continues, it is still "unacceptable".

Regarding those "unacceptable" NorK nuclear weapons. Ash thinks the US's new NorK Policy is a "good thing". What does that tell you, fellas, about the thrust of the Administration's "new" Course?

It is past time for vigilantes to take up the cause of defending the laws as set down in the Constitution.And these won't be your "Jets and Sharks" a la West Side Story. They'll be highly skilled former military and civilian hunter-killers.Just do'in Thomas Jeffersons work of watering the tree of liberty.

A USAF B-1B was damaged heavily during a forced landing at its forward operating base in Oman. The aircraft, with its crew of four still on board, slid 7,500 ft. before coming to a rest, still on the runway. The bomber had been forced to land with its landing gear retracted. Everyone escaped uninjured. The B-1 was deployed from Dyess AFB, Tex."

Let's take a peek at the Democrats' stance on immigration. I find it fascinating that long-standing problems, like hurricanes, climate change, addiction to oil, and yep, immigration, are suddenly Bush-caused crises.

MISTAKES WE ARE PAYING FOR A scandalous operation that was carried out under Gore's supervision that has not been adequately covered in the establishment media was the 1996 Citizenship USA project of the Clinton-Gore administration. Its goal was to naturalize over a million aliens by September 1996 in order to get them registered to vote in the 1996 presidential election. This was a blatant effort to increase the number of Democratic voters by circumventing the normal procedures designed to insure that the new citizens meet certain requirements. One of the bars to naturalization is a criminal record.David Schippers, the Chicago Democrat who served as special counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of President Clinton, says in his book, SellOut, that the Citizenship USA program was "under the direction of Vice President Al Gore" and that he was making sure a million aliens were naturalized in time to register for the 1996 presidential election. Schippers found that more than 75,000 aliens naturalized under this program had criminal records when they applied for citizenship. The fingerprints of another 176,000 were not checked by the FBI because of the pressure applied by Gore to get them qualified to vote in 1996.Here are some findings of a Congressional investigation of this scandal:• Hillary Clinton was involved in discussions on how liberal groups could facilitate the process of making aliens into citizens. • Al Gore and his staff were involved in discussions on how to "produce a million new citizens before election day," and President Clinton was reported to have said he "wants action." • One option for President Clinton was to order lower standards for U.S. citizenship. • Doris Meissner, director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, warned that Citizenship USA could be viewed as "a pro-Democrat voter mill."This was an excellent example of the cynical use of power by Clinton and Gore to insure their reelection even if it meant naturalizing felons.Edward Nelson, president of U.S. Border Control (USBC), a private organization that wants tighter controls on immigration, estimates that nationally 2 to 4 percent of all votes this year were cast by aliens and that in some Florida counties it may have been 10 to 15 percent. Figures from the Florida Department of State show that from 1994 to 1998, the number of "other race" registered voters - primarily Hispanic - went from just under 100,000 to 655,000. That's an increase well over 500 percent. Registration of blacks increased by 40 percent and of whites only 12 percent.Nelson points out that no one knows how many of the 550,000 "other race" voter registrations were of citizens naturalized under the Citizenship USA program. But we do know that Miami was one of the cities targeted. "On the other hand," Nelson says, "no one knows how many of these same voters are not citizens at all, but non-citizens and even illegal aliens who were nevertheless invited to register to vote by Florida motor-vehicle and welfare-state employees doing what they were required to do under the federal Motor Voter law."

It is the UIA position. True, that position could change.Until it does, though, it has not.

The US is on Course to handing Iraq over to it's elceted Government. The Government controlled by what the Iraqi Sunni call "Iranians".Granted the Sunni are prejudiced, but there is a kernnal of truth in their position.We will learn today the names of the major Ministers.

In any case, unless the Iraqi invite US to stay, we'll be leaving, just like we left Saudi Arabia and Somolia.

Tony--as a carrier builder--watching the USS Oriskany go under must've brought tear to eye, huh? Still can't believe we H-bombed the Saratoga at Bikini. Guess it's just too expensive to make museums out those old warships.

Here in South Philly, the oldheads used to say all those warships moored at the Navy Yard were just waiting to get sent to Korea and turned into razor blades.

Of course, that'll never happen to the USS New Jersey, now a museum across the river from Philly, on the Camden side. Damn, she is a beautiful avenger.

(Btw, I remember that guy who used to post here, who worked in military ship-building, I think the USS Reagan. I thought of him the other day when I read about the Oriskany getting turned into a "diving attraction.")

Meanwhile the Islamic Republic of Iran recently Declared War on the US because ....

'... the United States is a liberal democracy, the most powerful in the world and the leader of all the others. Liberal democracy, the letter says, is an affront to God, and as such its days are numbered. It would be best if President Bush and others realized this and abandoned it. But at all events, Iran will help where possible to hasten its end. (The full text of the letter, translated into English from the original Persian, can be found at www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Ahmadinejad%20letter.pdf.)

Neither the Bush administration nor its many critics appear to appreciate the significance, ideological and practical, of the letter. Nor do they appear to appreciate the remarkable boldness of Ahmadinejad personally. For the formal characteristics of the letter as well as its substance have ancient and modern analogs--letters of Muhammad to the Byzantine, Persian, and Ethiopian emperors of his day warning them to accept Islam and his rule or suffer the consequences, and a letter from Khomeini to Mikhail Gorbachev along similar lines. Thus, Ahmadinejad presents himself as the true heir of Muhammad and Khomeini and may even be suggesting that he is a founder himself. At the least, he presents himself as the spokesman and leader of Islam and the Muslim world in its entirety, transcending the Shiite/Sunni divide ...

From the Weekly StandardThat leftist rag. The story continues and is well worth reading.It calls on Mr Bush to"...inform Ahmadinejad and his radical allies that they are in for a real fight. This may not suffice to lead them to question their fundamental assumption and inspiration that we are on the run. But it may give pause to the many Muslims and non-Muslims standing on the sidelines, who see radical success and do not see American or Western resolve.

Of course the best person to make the first such declaration is President Bush--not as a Christian but as the world's leading liberal democrat. And not to Ahmadinejad, for whom a direct reply would be a victory, but to the Iranian people, the Muslim world, and the non-Muslim world. ..."

Tony--sorry, that shipwright was also named Tony--I thought he wuz you--I guess i thought both of yez were also the new press secretary, an old Hollywood movie star, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

Perhaps no element of the current conflict in Iraq engenders more emotionand acrimony within the military than debate concerning the role and influenceof the news media on public opinion and national policy. Debates regardingthis subject are nothing new. Since at least the Civil War, anecdotalassertions associated with media influence on American wars have causedcontroversy among government officials, members of the military, scholars,pundits, and members of the press as they continue to argue the media’s effects.Historically, contention over the issue of media influence has becomeparticularly acute when the policies of the administration executing the conflictare perceived as being either too slow, or failing, to achieve their politicalobjectives at the cost of mounting casualties.

It's interesting to see the parallels, a demonized Republican president (tho this one is actually not a crook) could lead to a raging Democrat backlash, and we could walk away from our allies and our new bases, the way we surrendered Danang and Cam Ranh Bay.

(Buddy, the carrier builder was NOT named Tony. Otherwise, I would have been his anti-matter and couldn't have read his posts without attacking him at the atomic level of his handle!)

Ps. Reading "The Singularity is Near" and it's great, even if you only read pages 330-335 "... on Warfare: The Remote, Robotic, Size-Reduced, Virtual-Reality Paradigm" which discuss Smart Dust, Nanoweapons, Smart Weapons, and VR. And "a drone army of unmanned, autonomous robots in the water, on the ground, and in the air. The swarms will have human commanders" ... in an "impregnable Internet in the sky." This is scheduled for the 2020's.

DG, Gitmo, and Guam probably were on the list in the '90s. Heck, Gitmo's been on the list since it's inception, if only because it keeps an American boot on the ground of the Monroe Doctrine. (Which appears to be falling apart, unfortunately, with all the socialist revolts in South America).

But the other three, Bulgaria, Balad, and Kyrghyzstan pretty much say it all, in three very different ways. Bulgaria, as wretchard mentioned, is evidence that the old US alliances in Western Europe are sliding easterly. Combined with Kyr., it's two points of power projection in Russia's old neighborhood, and a way to keep an increasingly-authoritarian Putin somewhat in check. Kyr. additionally is the other claw on the strategic encirclement of the Chinese theater (with Guam) and on the Persian theater (with Balad). Balad, well, that's pretty obvious - it's a strategic replacement for the bases we removed from Saudi (thus removing one of Osama's old-time complaints against America in the process). Also, Balad and DG strategically encircle the Arabian Peninsula as well as the HOA.

Finally, it's interesting that in the strategic sense, half are strictly airbases, and the other half have ocean access to support naval power projection, as well. It's good to see that US strategy is stepping, if ever-so-slightly, away from the strictly airpower power projection of the 90s, which I think will build up both the naval strength, as well as airpower, in the long run.

Maps are cool, and it's amazing how quickly they can change, yet how much they can stay the same as the situations change.

Off topic **JEWS wearing yellow in Iran?Christians,blue etc.This guy Ah/dine is a dangerour man and news is the Jews are getting fed up with the constant threats from a madman. To bomb or not to bomb ...how can you not preempt him?The entire world could use a regional nuclear exchange as a wake up call to come back to ... the reality of power, real power, and what it can do.

Hey, the Monroe Doctrine was the first American Grand Strategy, and still remains applicable today, in that the fate of and threat from Central and South America is of greater strategic concern to the United States than anything from EurAsiAfrica.

The identifying clothing for jews, christians, etc. has been "somewhat" debunked. What seems to be happening is that the Mullahs have decided that muslims will wear "identifying" clothing. Thereby alleviating that ol' Hitler Star of David pin conspiracy theory. Only Shia will wear this mandatory clothing. Nothing like a subtle twist, eh?

Trish, the permanent bases in Iraq may or may not include Balad, but you can bet we'll have a couple somewhere. I have my opinions as to which ones they'll be, but they don't amount to a whole lot. But, despite what people will say about being out in X number of years, I don't see that happening. We've still got bases in Germany, England, and Japan, after all. Heck, ol' Gitmo on the list is from a war a *long* time before even those opened up. I don't think that's going to change about American policy as the world becomes *smaller* and more globalized.

Saddam sure was a nice fellow, though, what with building a bunch of nice long runways and nice big airbases out in the middle of nowhere.

There’s also a big US airbase in Thule Greenland which has just been upgraded as it’s seen as crucial for SDI - smaller US bases exists on The Faeroe Islands and one on Iceland.

john SamfordSo as the American melting pot gets less European, it would only be natural that America looks less fondly on Europe. Europeans go out of their way to promote that attitude.The US is currently involved in two major military operations; Afghanistan and Iraq. While there have been a lot of pathetic whine and bicker from Europe (and the USA) and I personally would have liked a much more robust European involvement, the fact still remains that European involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq is many times larger than that of the rest of the world. No non-European ally comes anywhere near that of Europe.

2164thA very interesting post. I cannot think of any military base in England or Western Europe that makes any sense today.

While it may have been shrinking relative to other continents, the US economic interests in Europe still dwarf that of the rest of the world. Also the number of US citizens in Europe is not inconsiderable, actually - here in Denmark - US citizens is the second highest immigration group (after Polish). And of course, for all the public bluster, the cultural and historic bindings are greater than ever. So if US bases in England or Western Europe makes no sense, then it is not because of lack of national interests, but because Europe is considered stable, because should the US lose Europe it stands to lose more than if it lost the rest of the world combined.

Also the base on Diego Garcia is there only by the grace of old Europe Britain. While the future viability of bases in Kirgizstan (ruled by a vicious dictator) and Iraq are very uncertain.

And who is to say where the future battleground may lie? Apparently many who prefer to refer to Europe as Eurabia expect Europe blow up in continent wide civil wars before this century is out. It seems a few bases could come in handy in such a scenario. The USA is increasingly relying on oil from Africa. Bases in Europe are a lot better places to intervene in Africa that a base on Guam or Cuba. Russia and the old Soviet republics still have many unsettled issues with many potential flare ups. And Russian is an oil exporter on par with Saudi Arabia. Etc.

Now as a European I partially agree that the US bases in Europe have had a negative impact on Europeans. Letting them act like spoiled brats or foolish teenagers with no real consequence to themselves with the knowledge that the US would protect them regardless. Europe needs to get its own act together and invest more in its military, preferable with EU integrated strike forces. Whether this would be in US interests is another, more doubtful, matter.

trish - I'm not going to say bases were the *whole* point, but it was certainly one of the factors weighing in on the strategic importance of the country. Until he started using talking points from Michael Moore, one of Osama bin Laden's chief grievances with the US was the infidel bases defiling (Saudi) Holy Land. Those bases are gone now, in no small part due to the new bases building up in Iraq.

The reason "conservatives" may have a problem with the assertion that Iraqi bases will go away has less to do with giving up The hidden reason for going into Iraq, and more to do with voluntarily giving up strategic locations in a *very* strategically important region. You know, a big picture, long term sort of thing.

JFK gave away the Monroe Doctrine when he promised not to invade Cuba in return for Soviet nukes withdrawl.I have not heard one President,Speaker of the House, or Senate leader speak of the Monroe Doctrine in 25 years.Carter gave away the Canal, the Soviet Union no longer exists and yet we allow Castro to remain in power.No Sir, the Monroe Doctrine is as relevant today as The League Of Nations.

Dan, AAFES isn't on DG? WTF? I know of a few more mortar-ridden places than even Balad that have AAFES joints. Is there some sort of grand diplomatic agreement that the Brits won't allow AAFES onto DG or something?

Last time I was in DG (1972) there was a runway and a maintenance hangar. Not even a Coke machine.

RS Ranger..I'm totally with you on the concept and a new updated enforcement. As Shelby Steel has so eloquently pointed out our white guilt prevents us from doing so much of what needs to be done.

One of my favorite speeches of the last many years was Tony Blairs' address to our Congress. He said it so succinctly as to why America had to do it (Iraq)....because we were the only one's that could..there's plenty more work to do out in this wonderful world. We here are SO blessed....but to everything there is a season and war is the season we approach with Iran.

"... In a show of hands, the 275-member parliament approved each of the 39 Cabinet ministers proposed by incoming Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The new Shiite Muslim, Sunni Arab and Kurdish ministers then took their oaths of office during the nationally televised session in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. ......In his first address, al-Maliki told parliament he would make restoring stability and security the top priority of his new administration. He said he would "work fast" to improve and coordinate Iraqi security forces so they can reduce attacks by insurgent groups and militias.

Al-Maliki also said he would set "an objective timetable to transfer the full security mission to Iraqi forces, ending the mission of the multinational forces." ..."

I don't doubt the Iraqi intent is to stand up its own security forces independent of US ground support. But, just like in Germany, Japan, and Korea, there are a lot of advantages a US base (and US air support) has to offer.

We don't do the "security mission" in Germany, Japan or Korea, so maybe there's another mission remaining for us after they get their act together, just like there has been in those other strategic places.

"... Gen. Alberto Muller, a Chavez adviser, ... ... told The Associated Press on Friday that the military was considering buying about 24 Russian Sukhoi Su-35 fighters to replace the F-16s. He said Venezuelan pilots have already traveled to Russia to test out Russian warplanes. ...

... after the Russian Interfax news service quoted Venezuelan Ambassador ... ... saying Venezuela is awaiting talks on buying new jet fighters and that Chavez is seeking to visit Russia in the coming months. ..."

your evil bases will be wiped out by Allah, praise him, when the twelve mahdi comes out of the well,praise the well that he's been in.doun,doun Bush!! the evil baby killer of the arizhona wadi who lets no man drink from the water.doun doun Bush.the mahdi will scourch you like the scorpion stings the sword of Allah, the merciful,the beneficent, the hungry,the big . yes doun doun bush

Tony said:"It's interesting to see the parallels, a demonized Republican president (tho this one is actually not a crook)"---Ok:How about "Outlaw," or better yet "LAWLESS?"---By reading hypocrite Reid's 1993 immigration spiel and proposed legislation one can see what 13 short years of Two Presidents NOT ENFORCING THE LAW (Clinton did a much better job, however) has brought to this once much more United States:From something eminently managageable to what those that want to make it WORSE like GWB, say is beyond our ability to deal with without giving away the farm.

Truly a Scandal of quite some magnitude.---Reid's1993 BillReid's bill also cracks down on illegal immigration. The 1990 census reported 3.3 million illegal aliens in America. Recent estimates indicate about 2.5 million immigrants illegally entered the United States last year.Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs," Reid said. "The Immigration and aturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement.

Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes.---See 'Rat 5:35 PM

I have been asking myself of late--and not getting a perfectly clear answer--if perhaps this would not be a good time to put an end to Castro and his group. Would tick off 'Hollywood' no doubt, but that argues in favor of the idea. Such an action would perhaps make our dealings with S. America somewhat easier. But then, we don't seem to have the right Pres. or Congress to do what might make sense at this time.

I think that the one true speculation about Jesus's sex life is that in the society of his time to be an unmarried man his age was unusual. They seem to have put a lot of pressure on the young men to marry, so as to contribute to the survival of the tribe. I think Jesus was unmarried as the Gospels say, and I think he was an illegitimate child. I think William Blake was right on that. I am not going to the movie.

And the almost always clear-headed Krauthammer:Why Is Border Security 'Conservative'? ---A lot of what 'Rat and I've been trying to say for months, except he leaves out that Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty also called for WORKPLACE ENFORCEMENT as well, but Clinton Gore abandoned enforcement before the 2004 election, and GWB just plain abandoned Workplace Enforcement.And here we are.Could ask: "What was he thinking,"but then 'Rat would just paste in some of that evil conspiracy boilerplate that we are all too educated to buy into.

Most kind and wise Buddy. Us Wee's talked to Ali and we agreed that Wee's should never use Allah, the beneficent,magnitud-a-dude in the manner Ali did.Wee's banned together and got the magic green hat. It helped Ali.We Wee's thank you.

Yes Bobohard is right. This is a serious site. No trivia. Solid mind thoughtful things are chewed on here, over nad over and over again. We find solutions.I learned of this site while incarcerated with Buddy. Thanks for the tip Buddy.

It will not be long, there will be a Freemason begetting the Skull & Bones conspiracy theory. Beyond my comic conjecture and serious prediction.

Like this border issue was just a few months ago, a storm on the horizon, Secret Societies are going to be all the rage. Hollywood has already tried with that Nick Cage film, "National Treasure" about the Declaration being a coded map. It is going to become a storyline theme for an entire cycle.Freemasons and their descendents.

Desert Rat--If I had an extra million--sure don't--I think I might try to get up a troop from our local university here about the sex life of the Bubbha. Eastern religions being a big buy at the local bookstores now. How the Buddha mixed sex and see-stones. After I raked in the 25 M I'd go to the Yukon--and invite you to come up and hunt caribou and play cards--you and Buddy. And Doug. And Habu. Even Trish.

He is living there, in Baghdad.A living contradiction to the overall "good news" described in "Face of Defeat".Which is the "true" perspective?What mixture of geography has to be added to the mix?Bet each description is accurate.

Yo Doug, when you say Ok:How about "Outlaw," or better yet "LAWLESS?" are you advocating we re-live the entire Vietnam / Fall of America flashback and elect Another Jimmy Carter, as long as the new Jimmy promises to do something about illegal immigrants?

I can see it now, by 2009, we're losing one country / continent / year in the GWoT, so the Ol' Jimmy had us doing in the Cold Year by his third year in office. Jimmy the Twoth will be walking around the White House in Mr. Rogers sweaters and telling us to insulate our houses. Maybe we'll finally have a use for all that duct tape and plastic sheeting we stored up.

The mad mullahs won't be able to take over our embassy in Tehran, 'cause we don't got no embassy there. So, they'll just have to take our new embassy in Baghdad.

Sorry, us super-hawk types are notorious for being single-issue focused. And the issue ain't Immigration, especially during wartime.

Imagine where all this Bush-bashing can lead. I already lived this particular flashback - I went crazy and voted for Perot. And you know what that got us - a Clinton in the White House. Aiiiyyeeee.

I've thought along C-4's line wrt to Russia for sometime:Back when W saw Putin's Soul through his eye-holes, I just saw somebody co-operatin with us in our time of need wrt to basing in the backyard. (clothed, of course)Then somebody got uppity about treating baby-killing terrorists too mean-like to be labeled soulful and compassionate anymore, then somebody got kind of pushy and unmindful about back yards, and Voila!Pootie Poot took a scoot to China by way of Tehran.But who's to say from down here looking up at those Olympian Heights?Certainly not me: Maybe C-4?

Tony,Bush is UNABLE to carry on while enforcing the laws up to Clinton-Era standards?All that time saved signing NEW LEGISLATION could be put into enforcement if he gave a Rat's Ass.Only 'Rat knows about that, tho.

Doug - I'm all for the fence approach, do we put the Claymores on ring 2 or 3?

There was a great letter in AWST, said for the cost of 1 $7M Predator we could buy 70 Piper Cubs and each pilot would only have to patrol 30 miles of border. So a few hundred volunteer pilots with night-vision goggles could monitor the border 24-7. Shucks, even I could fly that mission. Then, what do we do when we see movement? Shoot marker rockets for the fast movers to lay in the napalm?

As for trucks and trains - none of them cross our borders. They stop a quarter mile back from the gate and carry each piece and human to clean trucks on our side of the border. How's that?

See, I'm on your side, sorta, just remember the dangers of Bush-bashing - it leads to Clintons in the White House - aiiiiyeeeeee!!!!

Damn!!--Life isn't all that bad. My 25 year old daughter just waltzed in here--and put Elvis on sound--by the living lord of light does that bring back some memories-take my hand, take my whole life too, for I can't help falling in love with you..good afternoon for this day..let's swear ourselves to protect the Constitution Of United States Of America. So we can listen to music and live our lives free. Bob..If you don't like this comment--return to sender, address unknown.....

I think that was a landing approach, you could almost jigger a regular ILS approach to Reagan National to get there, I would guess. The pilot got extremely lucky with the touchdown point.

Desert Rat, right now we have troops in hot zones in two countries, on either side of a country that is counter-threatening our Axis of Evil characterization of them. That's enough war for me to qualify as at war. As Wretchard puts it, we're fighting with one hand tied behind our back, I'll grant you that.

I agree on border security, but it's a matter of priorities. The platform-less Democrats offer NO alternatives, so why the hell should we be beating up Bush? What's our alternative?

When last were you on an American AFB base in Germany? For that matter, how about a USA base there?

Don't misunderstand, it would be the height of folly to leave base security in Iraq to outsiders, but you must admit that "folly" has been abundant of late.

Imagine how the Iran-Iraq War might have gone had the US had facilities in Iraq. All things being equal, contemporary Iraqis might find comfort in an American presence given the immediate neighborhood.

PS: If the US is exiting Europe, someone had better tell the contractors at a very large AFB. When last I heard, close to $2 billion has been spent on expansion during fiscal 2002-2005, and the beat goes on. I just missed out on the opening of a giant, multi-story AAFES "MALL" complex. Shucks!

“From the moment American Airlines Flight #77 crashed into the west side of the Pentagon at 09:38 a.m., and for the subsequent 10 days, this was a major fire and rescue incident, the responsibility of the Arlington County Fire Department (ACFD). The destruction caused by the attack was immediate and catastrophic. The 270,000 pounds of metal and jet fuel hurling into the solid mass of the Pentagon is the equivalent in weight of as diesel train locomotive, except it is traveling at more than 400 miles per hour. More than 600,000 airframe bolts and rivets and 60 miles of wire were instantly transformed into white-hot shrapnel. The resulting impact, penetration, and burning fuel had catastrophic effects to the five floors and three rings in and around Pentagon Corridors 4 and 5. This act of evil cost the lives of 189 persons in the Pentagon attack, 184 innocent victims, and the 5 terrorist perpetrators of the criminal attack.” - From the 9/11 Commission Report

Trish, Allan, we do see evidence of big air power supporting small combat ops recently. That was the formula that rolled up fearsome Afghanistan inside a month, when we kicked off our dynamic operations in the long war after 9/11.

We're using B-1's lately, that's an example that maybe our hands are not trembling and tied by artificial bounds.

It's a weird way to fight a war, to not be able to let us all back home share a common understanding of what is happening. And in the absence of accurate info, the MSM tells us our 'noble-sounding efforts' are all for naught.

A. Is there a war going on, a war that was declared and waged openly against us for years before 9/11?

B. or is America optionally waging war as Darth Vader, carrying out a doomed-to-fail galactic conspiracy?

"It's a weird way to fight a war, to not be able to let us all back home share a common understanding of what is happening. And in the absence of accurate info, the MSM tells us our 'noble-sounding efforts' are all for naught."

The B-1 is a monster. Earlier I posted that note that a damaged one landed wheels up in the last couple of weeks, in Oman. It slid about a mile and a half on its belly, and nobody was hurt. The pilot kept the supersonic monster on the runway, even.

The B-2 is much more expensive, too precious to risk since we only got 20 of them, and the Spirit can't tear around in the sky like the B-1 Lancer. It's one of our workhorses, it's a Beast of Burden.

On this one occasion only, I will presume to speak for Trish, expecting her to instantly clean my clock. But that's OK.

She and I are military, up close and personal. If there is a "disconnect" it is the fault of the adminsitration. Our guys are kicking ass and taking names. When the administration stops the rope-a-dope, we will all be better off.

So where do they launch the B-1's for Afghanistan?Just Oman?---I remember seeing a '15 for the first time at an Airshow in the Sierras:Amazed me with it's low-speed high power turns.Does the 22 have that ability also?

I guess we all agree the B-1 is the most beautiful bomber ever built.My ex-Navy neighbor used to fly the Connie or Super Connie: Those were nice and unique and pretty. (course the Radomes detracted a bit: especially the big flying saucer model)

I saw the B-2, one on static display, one flying, at a small air show at Willow Grove NAS a few years ago. The most amazing thing I ever saw in the sky. Alomst completely silent until it's past you, even at low altitude. At medium distance, it appears to be a flying ball, or dare I say, a flying saucer. It's surprisingly agile (like the F-117, which is also agile, sort of like an A-6 yankin' and bankin' in the F-117's case). Seeing the the B-2 doing a knife-edge pass down the flight line was incredible. Not the stunning kind of incredible like an F-15, and I imagine the F-22, more like a spectacular stunning.

Allan - what do you mean by the Administration playing rope-a-dope? I thought Bush ran on the war in 2004, against a mushy anti-war (anti-everything) Democrat campaign - and Bush won a significant majority. What do you want them to do?

I'd like to see Rummy on TV four or five days a week, but I doubt he will convince the weak at heart among us.